If
you build it ... will they learn?
As debate rages
over the cost of school consturction, a question lingers: Do
better schools mean better education?
Sunday, October 03, 2004 • BY STEVE CHAMBERS AND JOHN
MOONEY
On a rainy morning last
week, a crowd gathered at the sparkling new José
Martí Middle School in Union City. The visitors
marveled at the airy glass lobby, the cafeteria with its
full-service kitchen, the $650,000 computer system. An
artist's rendering displayed in the gymnasium held the
promise of football and soccer fields and a fieldhouse, all
scheduled for completion this spring.
The student body gave an
enthusiastic welcome to Gov. James E. McGreevey and key
education officials who helped deliver their new school, at
a cost of about $30 million in state money. In a series of
speeches, officials celebrated a job well done and
encouraged the school's 600 students to take full advantage
of their dazzling new resources.
Lurking behind the
jubilant emotions, however, was a nagging question: Will the
$8.6 billion New Jersey began borrowing in 2000 to build new
schools make for better- educated students? Will the $6
billion portion of the fund meant to overhaul dilapidated
city schools mean a reversal of low test scores and high
drop-out rates?
Last week, state officials
acknowledged that the $8.6 billion is rapidly running out
and will be gone long before the court-ordered overhaul is
finished. The shortfall will be in the billions. As
legislators digested this news, supporters of the program
began laying the groundwork for a request for more money.
Detractors angrily called for an accounting of how the money
was spent.
But as the debate moves
forward, the lingering question about the relationship
between shiny new facilities and student performance will
return.
In a landmark 1998 ruling
in the long-running Abbott vs. Burke case -- which
established a legal requirement for parity among rich and
poor school districts in New Jersey -- the state Supreme
Court pretty much accepted the argument that improved school
buildings made for a better education.
Describing the general
state of poor schools, known as Abbott schools, as
"crumbling and obsolescent," Chief Justice Robert Handler
wrote in the decision: "This grave state of disrepair not
only prevents children from receiving a thorough and
efficient education, but also threatens their health and
safety."
The court's argument was
based as much on principles of social justice as on notions
of improving educational performance. And the court knew
very well the limits of its order, attaching the mandate for
building new schools to those requiring teaching reforms and
the establishment of preschool programs.
"That was the key, that it
is just part of what contributes to learning," said Joan
Ponessa of the Education Law Center in Newark, which filed
the original Abbott suit 23 years ago and still leads the
effort to improve conditions in the state's most
cash-strapped districts. The court's formula for progress,
she said, included "good programs, good teachers and good
facilities."
The Schools Construction
Corporation, which oversees the state's building program,
has already spent $650 million ensuring that the most
egregious conditions no longer exist in city schools. Many
facilities, however, remain woefully overcrowded -- a major
focus of the new construction effort.
The state also has
committed nearly $2 billion to help suburban districts build
their own new facilities, based on a legislative compromise
that assumed the new buildings were needed everywhere to
enable the state to turn out the workers of the future. In
addition, the state is pouring nearly $1 billion a year more
into hiring new teachers and covering other program costs in
the cities.
Supporters of the effort
are quick to point out that some of the largest Abbott
districts -- including Newark, Paterson and Jersey City --
have seen improvements in test scores in recent years. But
for all the money spent on new facilities, the link between
better school buildings and smarter students is fuzzy and,
some would say, nonexistent.
As a nationally recognized
school-design consultant, Prakash Nair has seen the issue
play out in countless communities where he has lent his
expertise, including a half-dozen urban districts in New
Jersey. He said they need to look no further than across the
Hudson River for a warning.
"New York City spent $10
billion in 10 years on school construction, and has not seen
a dramatic impact in the way education is delivered or the
performance of its children," said Nair, president of
Fielding/Nair International in New York.
Common sense might suggest
that new buildings can only help the educational experience.
(State- of-the-art laboratories, for instance, often allow
for more advanced science courses.) Available research on
the subject, however, is contradictory, and varies depending
on researchers' methods.
A report on Milwaukee
schools in 1996 gave each building a ranking based on its
condition, from the quality of lighting to its water system,
and found a direct link with student scores. A nationwide
study conducted by the Educational Testing Service in 1987,
however, found no correlation between capital spending and
student achievement. Still other research has found
short-term improvements in morale and behavior in new
schools.
Sometimes there are even
contradictory results within the same study. One looked at
three elementary schools in Syracuse, N.Y., that were
renovated in the late 1980s, and studied how students
performed before, during and after renovations. It found
math scores improved significantly. However, reading did
not.
"We're not sure why the
reading scores didn't go up," said Lorraine Maxwell, the
Cornell University associate professor who was the author of
the study. "Maybe it was changes in curriculum or teachers.
We did find that (construction) noise had an
impact."
Maxwell, who received a
master's degree in planning from Rutgers-Newark, said the
study's findings reflect the difficulties many researchers
face when they try to draw connections between facilities
and student work. The biggest problem, she said, is that so
many other factors come into play, including students'
backgrounds and teachers' skills.
"It is so hard to hold
everything else constant and have facilities the only
variable," Maxwell said. At the same time, she noted that
some researchers have found evidence of "more student pride,
less vandalism, less acting out. ... Those things do affect
achievement."
New Jersey may have
reached a point, however, where some questions about the
value of new buildings can be answered. With more than a
dozen major projects completed, "Now's the time to start
monitoring what has happened in these schools -- whether the
staffing improves, whether there's better attendance or
schools are better monitoring students' health because they
have clinic space," said Ponessa. "And, ultimately, whether
test scores go up."
As these questions are
explored, state officials -- including some who supported
the school-construction program -- will be taking a hard
look at whether the results are worth the cost. State Sen.
William Gormley, a Republican from Atlantic County who
co-sponsored the bill creating the $8.6 billion fund, said a
thorough accounting of how money has been spent will have to
be done before there is any discussion of new
borrowing.
"The court was trying to
relieve a social problem of inferior facilities, but at the
same time you can cross a line where you are placing an
unfair burden on taxpayers," he said. "They didn't tap into
a surreal source of funding. It comes from human beings who
work overtime to pay property and income taxes."
Expensive or not, new
schools are a huge boost for the state's children, said U.S.
Rep. Bob Menendez, a Hudson County Democrat schooled in the
Union County public system, who gave a passionate speech at
the José Martí school last week. Building new
schools, he said, helps drive home the point to students
that education is an important societal goal.
"You can get a good
education in an inferior school, but you will not unlock all
the potential in these students," he said after the ribbon-
cutting ceremony. "If you send children to schools with
little technology, no gym, a blackboard so faded you can't
read the teacher's handwriting, where you have to walk
through one classroom to get to another, you are sending a
message to students that education is not a value we believe
in."
For 11-year-old Andrea
Aguirre, an Ecuadoran immigrant, classes at José
Martí have been a morale booster. Previously, she
attended a cramped elementary school without a cafeteria or
a gym. Other students attended classes in a converted cheese
factory.
"I'm studying very hard
here," Aguirre said. "This school is really cool. I think
we're going to be very successful."
Kimberly Santos, assistant
principal at Main Street School in Orange, another
state-funded facility that opened this month, said she
believes new buildings will translate into better
results.
"I expect there will be a
sense of pride, a sense that, 'We deserve this.' These kids
will be able to see that while they don't live in the
wealthy suburbs, they can have a state-of-the-art facility,"
she said. "I think that will boost their self-esteem. It's
something like when you get a new car. How do you
feel?"
Steve Chambers and John Mooney are staff writers for The
Star- Ledger.
Copyright 2004 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with
permission.
|